Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Chandi Prasad Uniyal in Shiv Kumar Jhariya (Mehra) vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024Matching Fragments
(c) In a similar case as in Writ Petition No.291 of 2016 (Madan Lal Bardele Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh disposed off on 06.09.2016, by following the judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), the recovery order was quashed. By placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was noticed that the judgments passed in the cases of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) and Rafiq Masih (supra) were delivered by Benches consisting of two Hon'ble Judges. However, the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2014) 8 SCC 883 was taken note of and it was held that the judgment passed in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) does not conflict with the observations made in the other two cases namely Shyam Babu Verma (supra) and Sahib Ram (supra). The said order was challenged in Writ Appeal No.95 of 2017, which was dismissed by the order dated 03.02.2017. The same was challenged by the State in SLP(C) Diary No.34048 of 2017 by placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra). The SLP was dismissed by the order dated 15.09.2023. This order was considered in the referral order as aforesaid. Therefore, the order passed in the case of Madan Lal Bardele (supra) attained finality after dismissal of the aforesaid SLP.
Contentions of the State
4.(a) Shri Amit Seth, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State denied the contentions of the petitioners. He contended that the employer has a right to seek recovery in pursuance to Rule 65 of the Rules of 1976. The judgments passed in the case of Shyam Babu Verma (supra), Sahib Ram (supra) and Rafiq Masih (supra) are judgments passed in pursuance to the power exercised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Law with regard to recovery has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. When the judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih was referred to a Larger Bench, the Larger Bench have observed that Article 136 of the Constitution of India is a corrective jurisdiction that vests discretion in the Supreme Court to settle the law. It was clearly held that the law laid down in the case of Chandi Prasad Uiyal (supra) does not conflict with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the other two cases namely that of Shyam Babu Verma (supra) and Sahib Ram (supra).
The aforesaid judgment would clearly indicate that certain exceptions were carved out with respect to the recovery from a retiring or a retired Government servant.
11. In the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra), it was held that except a few instances as pointed out in the Syed Abdul Qadri's case (supra) and Col.B.J. Akkara's case (supra), the excess payment made due to a wrong or irregular pay fixation could always be recovered. The Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih reported in (2014) 8 SCC 883 upheld the judgment passed in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra).
Therefore, a Government servant should be put to notice at the first instance when the payment is made to him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has not interfered with the propositions laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra).
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) considered the various judgments on the issue. Therefore, the argument of the State that the judgment in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) as well as the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 were not considered in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) may not be correct. The judgment delivered in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) was also followed in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) wherein in para 15 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed not to effect recovery in exceptional cases as pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadri's case and Col. B.J. Akkara's case.